3 ms·

"Whataboutism" isn't a proper counter-argument. Shutting down a few plants in the west is maybe just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and asking about th

"Whataboutism" isn't a proper counter-argument. Shutting down a few plants in the west is maybe just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and asking about the iceberg and the cold water isn't "whataboutism" in that it doesn't distract from the issue at hand. It rather points to the really important part of the issue. More like a kind of "reverse whataboutism". Relative emissions and various kinds of cost factors matter a lot. The climate isn't going to improve by stupidly and blindly spending billions, goodwill and precious time on low-yield measures, when less resources could be spent on high-yield measures elsewhere. That is why stuff like banning plastic straws or kitchen gas stoves is actively harmful. Because the "what about those foreign big emitters" argument is very valid.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
US per capita emissions are almost twice that of China, so a dollar spent on emissions reductions in the US has a bigger impact.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Total global warming is predicated on total CO2 emissions, which is the bottom line that is most significant. Yes, the US has higher per-capita emissions, and absolutely should reduce those. However US emissions have been flat or declining for decades now (since the 1970s or 1980s depending on how you look at it), whilst China's emissions, both total and per capita, have exploded in the past four decades as that country has industrialised and emerged as a mid-income nation. These facts re-hash arguments about planetary limits which have been ongoing since the 1970s if not before, and pit past growth, consumption, and pollution amongst western nations (the US, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia, largely), with the hopes for economic growth, still strongly coupled to consumption and emissions, of the rest of the world, quite notably China and India, but also Africa's future billion or so in coming decades. It's notable that despite the Industrial Revolution and carbon age being roughly 250 years old, half of all emissions date from the 1970s, a time at which Western emissions were slowing heavily following the 1970s oil shocks. It's not a case of either/or but both, the reality is complex, and simple, and most especially nationalistic simplifications, finger-pointing, or whataboutisms really don't advance the discussion. <https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions>
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Agreed. My comment was a response to somebody who basically said "why should the US do anything when China is worse." Others attacked the (bad) argument, I attacked the (bad) assumption.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

US per capita emissions are almost twice that of China, so a dollar spent on emissions reductions in the US has a bigger impact.

dredmorbius 2y ago
Total global warming is predicated on total CO2 emissions, which is the bottom line that is most significant. Yes, the US has higher per-capita emissions, and absolutely should reduce those. However US emissions have been flat or declining for decades now (since the 1970s or 1980s depending on how you look at it), whilst China's emissions, both total and per capita, have exploded in the past four decades as that country has industrialised and emerged as a mid-income nation. These facts re-hash arguments about planetary limits which have been ongoing since the 1970s if not before, and pit past growth, consumption, and pollution amongst western nations (the US, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia, largely), with the hopes for economic growth, still strongly coupled to consumption and emissions, of the rest of the world, quite notably China and India, but also Africa's future billion or so in coming decades. It's notable that despite the Industrial Revolution and carbon age being roughly 250 years old, half of all emissions date from the 1970s, a time at which Western emissions were slowing heavily following the 1970s oil shocks. It's not a case of either/or but both, the reality is complex, and simple, and most especially nationalistic simplifications, finger-pointing, or whataboutisms really don't advance the discussion. <https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions>
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Agreed. My comment was a response to somebody who basically said "why should the US do anything when China is worse." Others attacked the (bad) argument, I attacked the (bad) assumption.